ArticleBMC surgery2022
Neuroendoscopic-assisted versus mini-open craniotomy for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: a retrospective analysis.
Article in BMC surgery, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 11 citations in OpenAlex.
- Efficacy and Safety of Neuroendoscopy versus Craniotomy for Spontaneous Supratentorial Intracerebral Hemorrhage: An Updated Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Non-Randomized Studies.Brain and behavior · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Application of ultrasound-based navigation in hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage surgery: a meta-analysis.American journal of translational research · 2026Review
- Conventional Craniotomy and Neuroendoscopic Surgery for Patients with Hypertensive Intracerebral Hemorrhage: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review.Asian journal of neurosurgery · 2025Review
- Effect and prognosis of endoscopic intracranial hematoma removal and hematoma puncture and drainage in patients with hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.Wideochirurgia i inne techniki maloinwazyjne = Videosurgery and other miniinvasive techniques · 2024Article
- Prognostic factors in acute hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage: impact of minimally invasive puncture and drainage.American journal of translational research · 2024Article
- Use of Dyna-computed tomography-assisted neuroendoscopic hematoma evacuation in the treatment of hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage.Neurosurgical review · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveTo compare outcomes in neuroendoscopic-assisted vs mini-open craniotomy for hypertensive intracerebral hemorrhage (HICH), so as to provide reasonable surgical treatment.
methodsClinical data of 184 patients with HICH in the hospital from January 2019 to May 2021 were analyzed retrospectively. The patients were divided into mini-open craniotomy group and neuroendoscopic-assisted group. The operation time, hematoma clearance rate, intraoperative blood loss, neurological function recovery, and postoperative mortality of the two groups were compared by retrospective analysis.
resultsThe operation time and intraoperative blood loss in the mini-open craniotomy group were more than those in the neuroendoscopic-assisted group, but there was no significant difference between the two groups. There was no significant difference in hematoma clearance rate between the two groups, but for the rugby hematoma, the hematoma clearance rate in the neuroendoscopic-assisted group was higher than in the mini-open craniotomy group, the difference was statistically significant. Within 1 month after the operation, there was no significant difference in mortality between the two groups. 6 months after the operation, there was no significant difference in the recovery of neurological function between the two groups.
conclusionNeuroendoscopic-assisted and mini-open craniotomy for the treatment of HICH has the advantages of minimal trauma with good effects, and its main reason for short operation time, reduced bleeding, and high hematoma clearance rate. Although the two surgical methods can improve the survival rate of patients, they do not change the prognosis of patients. Therefore, the choice of surgical methods should be adopted based on the patient's clinical manifestations, hematoma volume, hematoma type, and the experience of the surgeon.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.